yzzlthtz: easy fix. stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible and stop cutting down trees. this has to happen eventually anyways, since they will run out - trees and fossil fuels. whichever country puts the most effort into researching and implementing renewable energies gets to export their results to the rest of the world and make a mint. hopefully we'll get this done before it's too late. for you "it's not man-made"-ers - congrats, you've just proven your ability to assimilate and regurgitate lies. Human caused climate change has been a scientifically accepted phenomenon since the 80s WHEN IT WAS A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY WAS THROWING THE EARTH INTO A NEW ICE AGE. Denying it is pretty much like denying that the earth is round. so - Way to go! your blissful ignorance will no doubt go down in history.
Actually of the 100 things politicians do, 100 of them are to further their own ends. If a politician did something that wasn't in their best interests... well, we shouldn't even discuss this if, 'cos that's never gonna happen.
However, there is no "if" in man made global warming, of course climate fluctuates and all that, but all we are interseted in is deviations from the norm, and global warming is man made. Fact. Backed up by the clear line of thought I posted earlier. And we really can do something about it, we have the technology, we have the money, we can make a difference, but we are not doing it.
Why don't we switch to nuclear power?
Why don't USA place more realistic CO2 restrictions on cars?
Why don't we stop using Air conditioning and heating? (not including the old people who really do need the heating.)
Why don't we plant more trees?
Precisely because of the selfishness of those in charge. If either Obama or MacCain proposed to change 95% of USA's energy production to Nuclear within the next 20 years, then that would make him unelectable. However, technically, we easily achieve that, without any changes to anybody's daily life. If they proposed more restrictions on cars, they would be unelectable. If they proposed some way of cutting back air conditioning and heating in homes, they would be unelectable. If they proposed a government program to plant trees on the edges of USA's deserts, they would be unelectable.
Who is electing the next president? Will you be electing someone whose best interests coincides with yours? Or will the big corporations be electing someone whose best interests coincides with them? What matters more in an election? Really wanting to change the world for the better? Or more campaign funding?
You are saying we are not willing to make some changes now to our habits, on the totally blind assumption global warming is not as bad as it seems, because it's impossible to change society too much. How many smokers you know are trying to quit smoking? I know a few smokers, for one of them smoking more as well be his life, and all of them are trying to quit smoking. Maybe they shouldn't quit smoking, on the blind assumption maybe it won't cause cancer.
You do know you're horribly contradicting yourself, right? You say that Global Warmin is man made, yet you acknowledge natural fluctuations. Global Warming is, at best, helped by humans. It's not created by us. Unless the Romans and vikings "created" global warming by... I don't know... mass-building temples of Jupiter and ships, or something. Global Warming is not, and I repeat, not a human process. It's happened before in history, without Man's help. So stop proclaiming that it's our fault. Sometimes shite just happens.
I'd like to add that people should stop trusting blindly in statistics and scientists. They remain (made by) people, and people make mistakes, even in consensus. Cesare Emiliani was a great scientist, yet his prediction about global cooling seems to be wrong by today's scientific findings. Who's to say -those- guys are not wrong? Just because they come up with fancy statistics? Well... here's a list of some guys (many of them actually scientists, unlike Al Gore!) who oppose the mainstream theory of global warming. So there really isn't a consensus among scientists.
Also, you're seriously suggesting that the world should switch to nuclear energy? Global Warming might destroy society in a few hundred years, nuclear energy would need less years for that. Where will you keep the waste, how will you prevend human failure, etc.?
Stop heating? I live in the Netherlands. It gets cold here. Stop air conditioning? I live in the Netherlands, it gets hot and damp here. Everybody wants a clear conscience, but nobody wants to surrender his or her way of life. And, as a complete reliance on nuclear energy is plain silly and no alternative, it really is impossible for society to change. Using less energy is not really solving anything, really.
yzzlthtz: easy fix. stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible and stop cutting down trees. this has to happen eventually anyways, since they will run out - trees and fossil fuels. whichever country puts the most effort into researching and implementing renewable energies gets to export their results to the rest of the world and make a mint. hopefully we'll get this done before it's too late. for you "it's not man-made"-ers - congrats, you've just proven your ability to assimilate and regurgitate lies. Human caused climate change has been a scientifically accepted phenomenon since the 80s WHEN IT WAS A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY WAS THROWING THE EARTH INTO A NEW ICE AGE. Denying it is pretty much like denying that the earth is round. so - Way to go! your blissful ignorance will no doubt go down in history.
Well thank God someone started thinking! I got sick of all the "it's not man-made"-ers.
First we tell the sun to behave, then we tell the CO2 in our oceans to stay there. Then we kill all cows, all the people in India, half the population of China and half the population of the USA. Problem solved.
WickedSkin: First we tell the sun to behave, then we tell the CO2 in our oceans to stay there. Then we kill all cows, all the people in India, half the population of China and half the population of the USA. Problem solved.
This is probably the only reasonable "solution" to Global Warming there is.
WickedSkin: First we tell the sun to behave, then we tell the CO2 in our oceans to stay there. Then we kill all cows, all the people in India, half the population of China and half the population of the USA. Problem solved.
About 800,000 years. (And this is from 2006.) Plenty of data if you ask me, considering this new effect is supposed to happen over only a few decades.
In fact data reaching back that far (and much much further) using ice cores and other geophysical techniques is what supports the global warming as a natural process side of the argument. The Earth experiences massive time-scale cycles of temperature variation. Recently (as in over the last few million years) the Earth has experienced an ice-age (remember all those woolly mammoths) and has since moved into a more temperate temperature range. The natural progression (which has gone through numerous cycles over billions of years) now is movement to a hotter global temperature. This increase in temperature is not going to be at the rate all the newspaper 'scientists' yell at you, it is a process which takes millions of years.
Also, claiming that 800 000 years is plenty of data is just plain incorrect. The Earth is over 4 billion years old and the cycle of global warming and cooling takes tens of millions of years at least. 800 000 years is barely anything on geological timescales and is not as conclusive as you state.
Yes, the Earth has natural temperature variations. Yes, they are very slow, and sometimes very big. The important thing here is that the current warming is extremely fast, and big enough to be pretty bad for humans.
I'm not sure why so many people think the existence of natural cycles disproves global warming; actually, they help prove it, because they show how ridiculously fast the current warming is compared to anything in the past. It's not unnatural because the new temperature is unprecedented; it's unnatural because the rate of change is unprecedented, and could be very hard to adapt to just because it's so fast. 800,000 years is plenty of data because, like I said, most of the predicted warming should occur over a much, much shorter period of time. We have no way to explain how anything natural could be doing this; there hasn't been a supervolcano eruption, the Sun hasn't gone berzerk, etc. Some natural things have contributed, but they're no different from the other natural things that have been going on for 800,000+ years and not doing anything like this.
What can you say, that the sudden warming beginning in the Industrial Revolution and developing rapidly into something unlike anything in the past 800,000 years is just a coincidence, caused by something natural and strangely unnoticeable? I really don't see why this is still an argument. Anti-global warming is looking more and more like another conspiracy theory, given all the crazy excuses people come up with when someone asks why on Earth so many scientists would support global warming if it's not well-supported. Why can't they just accept it?
(That last part was mostly an exasperated rant; no offense intended to the quoted poster.)
Jazzyluv: Did you see me rape your articles last time, obviously not. One of your articles SUPPORTED ME.
Such a short and nasty response to a long and well-thought-out post hardly deserves a rebuttal, but here it is anyway. I assume you mean this? I didn't actually quote that, I quoted this similar one, but both of these support global warming so I have no idea what you're being so snide about. The first one says that global warming is "amplifying the effects of the orbital changes" and that "the current conditions represent an experiment with a sample size of one in which we may find new and unexpected feedbacks", which I guess if you're skimming it looking for things to misquote and misinterpret might sound like it's against global warming. But it isn't, it's just being scientific by not ignoring other things that affect warming and by mentioning that the new climate and temperature will be unpredictable (this is exactly why we are so worried about global warming). The article I actually quoted supports global warming pretty much completely. Please, treat this like an actual subject or don't talk about it.
Spinozaad: I'd like to add that people should stop trusting blindly in statistics and scientists. They remain (made by) people, and people make mistakes, even in consensus. Cesare Emiliani was a great scientist, yet his prediction about global cooling seems to be wrong by today's scientific findings. Who's to say -those- guys are not wrong? Just because they come up with fancy statistics? Well... here's a list of some guys (many of them actually scientists, unlike Al Gore!) who oppose the mainstream theory of global warming. So there really isn't a consensus among scientists.
But here's the question - are you a scientist yourself? Do you or are you conducting in any higher-level training in the sciences? Experimental evidence is the best we can get at the moment, and without an understanding of the principles of science, which holds experiment as an imperative step, your comment becomes diluted.
Spinozaad: Also, you're seriously suggesting that the world should switch to nuclear energy? Global Warming might destroy society in a few hundred years, nuclear energy would need less years for that. Where will you keep the waste, how will you prevend human failure, etc.?
Now you've done it - prepare for a 1,500-word essay on nuclear power, courtesy of my research into this topic. I'm absolutely sick to the teeth of you scaremongerers who don't understand the general principles of nuclear energy.
RAKtheUndead: (This argument is based on research done for a speech that I delivered on the 15th of October.)
There has always been a lot of NIMBYism surrounding nuclear power, probably from public perception of nuclear weapons, and to be honest, I'd be frightened out of my mind if I thought that nuclear power had much in common with Texan bomber pilots whooping and waving hats as they descended to the ground.
Luckily, nuclear power is nowhere near as violent or dangerous, and in this day and age of increasing oil prices, there are a number of advantages which should be considered before trying to condemn nuclear power.
- Nuclear power has far lower carbon dioxide emissions than all fossil fuel sources, and as it stands, lower emissions than even wind and solar power.
- Nuclear power is reliable. Capacity factors of 75%-plus are comparable, and sometimes even superior to fossil fuel sources, and far superior to the 15-30% capacity factors of wind and solar power.
- Nuclear power is flexible. Because nuclear reactors are constantly running while not being routinely maintained, they can cope with surges in demand easily, such as those in the morning or evening. Wind and solar power lack this capacity, being dependent on weather conditions.
- Nuclear power is scalable. A nuclear reactor can currently be scaled to fit everything from comparatively small aircraft carriers and submarines to the biggest metropolises. Recent developments, including the Toshiba 4S, seek to make the nuclear reactor even smaller, with 40MW of power produced in a building little bigger than a current electricity substation, and because a single pound of U-235 can produce hundreds of thousands or even millions of times the energy of a pound of coal or oil, nuclear reactors can hypothetically be made even smaller than that.
- Nuclear power has an exemplary safety record in most modern nuclear countries. There have been absolutely no fatal accidents in France and Japan, for instance.
But you may be thinking, "How can you say that nuclear power has an exemplary safety record when the likes of the Chernobyl disaster was allowed to happen?" In response, I will note that even though the Chernobyl disaster may have been tragic and devastating, there were several characteristics of the reactor design and elements of staff training which make it difficult to compare to modern reactors.
The Chernobyl reactors were RBMK-type designs, based on 1950s technology and known for being extremely crude. In fact, they were noted to be one of the most unsafe and dangerous reactor designs ever put into production. The RBMKs were made for two purposes: to be cheap and to produce plutonium, and they were only later adapted to produce electrical power. For this reason, safety features suffered, leaving the reactors with design flaws including:
- Control rods with graphite tips which, when initially placed into the reactor, displaced coolant, speeding up the reaction before slowing it down.
- A SCRAM, or emergency shutdown, procedure which took eighteen seconds, compared to the five seconds of modern reactors.
- A design which left the reactors more dangerous at low power - counter-intuitive and confusing to the reactor crew.
- No concrete shielding around the reactor, unlike all contemporary American designs.
But the shocking thing was, even with these critical design flaws, it took gross incompetence and human error to cause the Chernobyl disaster. The catastrophic decision was made to test the emergency cooling system in the reactor during routine maintenance, a decision that no trained nuclear engineer should have made. More shockingly than that, it was done just before a shift change, leaving the incoming workers completely unknowledgeable about the experiment.
The first thing that most people would think of when they hear the word "Chernobyl" would probably be, "meltdown". That would be incorrect. Chernobyl was not a meltdown of the traditional kind - it was a power excursion which caused a steam explosion, which would not have been anywhere near as devastating if the reactor had been enclosed with concrete. When the disaster was first realised, the technicians attempted the SCRAM procedure, which was ineffective due to the previously discussed design flaws - pointing to both abominable design and human error as causes of the disaster.
However, despite the far-reaching consequences of the event, a 2005 report by the Chernobyl Forum, made up of members of the International Atomic Energy Agency and several UN organisations, including the World Health Organisation, established that apart from the 57 direct deaths due to the disaster, total deaths from the event were estimated at 4,000 to 9,000 due to thyroid cancer.
This is a figure which has to be looked at in context. More deaths occur every year as a result of particulate air pollution from fossil fuel sources than have died as a result of accidents and radiation release from the entire history of nuclear-fuelled energy. Hydroelectric power is no more innocent - the Banqiao Dam collapse in China caused an estimated 26,000 deaths due to flooding and an extra 145,000 due to epidemics and flooding. Imagine the devastation if the likes of the Hoover Dam were to collapse or be destroyed - a large part of western America would be redefined, leading to the deaths of millions.
Considering these figures, the Chernobyl disaster shows less about the inherent dangers of nuclear power than the inherent dangers extant in all energy sources if proper safety precautions are not taken. What is important to remember is that the Chernobyl reactors were of a kind unlike all contemporary Western reactors and that such an event would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to replicate in any modern reactor.
A more relevant nuclear accident was the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor failure. This was a true partial core meltdown in a more modern reactor design, but it isn't at all appropriate for arguing against the dangers of nuclear power - the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported absolutely no deaths as a result of the accident.
Unlike Chernobyl, the Three Mile Island reactors were shielded with concrete, leading to no detectable release of radiation outside of the plant. The disaster is more relevant because it shows that even a potentially more dangerous reactor accident than the Chernobyl disaster could be averted with proper safety procedures. Safety records have only improved since then - there is a higher emphasis on computers, which do not tolerate deviation, unlike humans, and do not make mistakes due to fatigue, et cetera.
So, we move onto the other great big complaint about nuclear power - the problem of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is universally considered to be a Bad Thing, by all parties involved, including reactor operators, to which it represents wasted power. That is why modern nuclear power plants make provisions to cut down on the amount of waste produced by their power plants.
But before I discuss the problems associated with nuclear waste, there is one matter which has to be considered: the issue of coal waste. According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy, not only does coal combustion produce 100 times the population effective dose of radiation of nuclear power plants, because of the presence of radioisotopes of thorium and uranium in coal waste, but this nuclear waste in coal ash is equivalent to dozens of nuclear fuel loadings, and in fact is present in such high quantities that there is more energy present in that nuclear waste than is liberated from combustion of that coal.
Yet, there are few people complaining about the problems of disposing of coal waste. At least waste from nuclear reactors is present in one place. But, considering that, I return to the issue of nuclear waste. The usual way of disposing of nuclear waste is to vitrify it, or to turn it into a sort of glass. This would reasonably be combined with reprocessing in order to allow the maximum of energy to be taken from the nuclear material, and leaves the waste with a much lower radioactive dose. Some may consider that the idea of placing nuclear waste underground is dangerous and irresponsible, probably forgetting that the nuclear material came from underground in the first place. In any case, it is far easier to dispose of nuclear waste than it is to dispose of the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel consumption.
In conclusion, nuclear energy is not a perfect alternative. There are inherent characteristics of processing nuclear waste which do lead to expense, if not particular danger, but with fossil fuels becoming increasingly expensive and having inherent dangers associated with them which are far more prevalent than those posed by nuclear energy, and with wind and solar having capacity factors which leads them to be only useful as backup sources of energy at best, it is time to reconsider the advantages of nuclear energy versus the disadvantages.
Weighing them up, I am convinced that the superior capacity factors, scalability and flexibility of nuclear energy, along with the very small amount of material needed to produce energy and its surprisingly exemplary safety record far outweigh the problems posed by nuclear waste, and therefore, I am fully in support of nuclear power as the energy source of the future.
But here's the question - are you a scientist yourself? Do you or are you conducting in any higher-level training in the sciences? Experimental evidence is the best we can get at the moment, and without an understanding of the principles of science, which holds experiment as an imperative step, your comment becomes diluted.
I'm a history student, so to answer your question: No, I'm not being trained or taught in natural sciences, let alone pure (theoretical) science. I am, however, a student of social/cultural science which, despite the fact that mathematical reasoning is not the driving force behind it, still has the same basis: Skepticism, the neverending inquiry and inherent doubt in any new development and theory.
I'm constantly getting the feeling that people try to lure me into the "GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE"-camp, or at least condemn me on similar grounds. I do not deny that Global Warming is happening. It is, I am not doubting the absolute fact that the earth is getting warmer on average. No man of science (I consider myself one, even though I'm still pretty much an apprentice) will doubt such a fact. I do doubt the interpretation and conclusion people attach to this fact.
I'm willing to admit that CO2-emissions are 'helping' global warming, it's not my area of expertise and it would remove the foundations of my own arguments if I claimed that it was. However, it's a fact that climate change is cyclical phenomenon. It's been hotter and warmer in the past, without many of the catastrophic effects people are ascribing to our current return to a warmer climate. People didn't call Greenland "Greenland" because they liked the irony of it.
Basically put, it's not the theory behind Global Warming that I'm against. Sure, I do not agree with all aspects of it, especially the "Sole Guilt"-aspect that so many "believers" seem to emphasize. It's the believers I have a problem with. Society will not collapse, it will, at most, adapt. But I still believe that ultimately it will just happen to be less of the problem people make of it.
RAKtheUndead: *interesting essay, although it lacks footnotes (a friendly, scientific jab ;-) )*
First of all, I'll instantly recognize your superior knowledge on the subject, but I can't help but pointing out some (cynical, perhaps) questions. No human-made safety measure is completely infallible (The birth-control pill comes close, I guess). Despite all the benefits, I continue to wonder (awed by the completely different, but closely associated with the Bomb) if all the advantages way up to the possible disadvantages. I can't stave it with arguments, so I'll salute you in this regard.
Although I suppose it is in economics and energy demand as is in politics, that it is unwise to base all of your power on one source.
You do know you're horribly contradicting yourself, right? ...etc...
OK. Let's go back to basic principles first. When we look at something, anything, like what was the effect of a particular thunder storm on how much corn was produced from a field. We are looking at the effect of the thunder storm, that's a really important point, so I'm going to repeaet it again, we are looking at the effect of the thunder storm. Does that mean there are no natural fluctuations in the production level of this field? We don't really care to be honest, because, and here I repeat it again, we are looking at the effect of the thunder storm.
So, to answer your question. When we are looking at the effects of man made activities on our climate. We are looking at the effects of man made activities on our climate. Should I repeat this for you again? I mean it may sound like a difficult point to understnad, but really it's kind of simple. We are not looking at the natural fluctuations and asking ourselves stupid questions about it. The natural fluctuations, whatever they are, are irrelevant, this is a very simple point:
No matter whatever else. CO2 absorbs heat.
I really don't understand why when I post something like this:
"If you had a box, and you put in more heat then you take out of it, then it heats up. What are we putting into our box? 1 trillion barrels of oil last centry, and 1 trillion more this centry, and even more coal, and some gas also. CO2 heats up under the sun. What are we taking out of the box? Only heat transfer by radiation from earth, the same as 5000 years ago."
People just think it's plain stupidly obvious, yet then they start talking about natural fluctuations. Is natural fluctuations going to affect the amount of CO2 we are puttin into the box? Is natural fluctuations going to affect CO2's ability to absorb heat? Why do you think it's relevant then?
Spinozaad: ...etc... Basically put, it's not the theory behind Global Warming that I'm against. Sure, I do not agree with all aspects of it, especially the "Sole Guilt"-aspect that so many "believers" seem to emphasize. It's the believers I have a problem with. Society will not collapse, it will, at most, adapt. But I still believe that ultimately it will just happen to be less of the problem people make of it. ...etc...
Hmm?! Let's stop arguing right here, this is a misunderstanding. I'm not a "believer" just because I do think global warming is an issue. I never said society will collapse or the world will end, I just said we should be doing all we can do about it. No one actually knows how much of a problem it is, but it's just common sense to always bet on the safer side and buy travel insurance when you go on holiday.
So, to answer your question. When we are looking at the effects of man made activities on our climate. We are looking at the effects of man made activities on our climate. Should I repeat this for you again? I mean it may sound like a difficult point to understnad, but really it's kind of simple. We are not looking at the natural fluctuations and asking ourselves stupid questions about it. The natural fluctuations, whatever they are, are irrelevant, this is a very simple point:
No it isn't you can't arbitrarily remove an aspect of an investigation simply because you want to look at one exact thing. It's like the equations we did in physics were you had to assume that something was taking place in a vacum, all very good but in the real world you would be calculating the speed of that vehicle as it would behave in with the effects of wind resistance. The same applies to global warming / climate shift. You can't just say ignore the cyclic nature of global warming / climate change and only just look at the man made aspect of it.
Even to reach a conclusion on purely the aspect of weather man's contribution is having an effect you still need to take in to consideration the natural effects to reach your conclusions.
ok, so we are AFFECTING it, but we are not EFFECTING it.
for those tards in the audience (you know who you are), that means that we are contributing TO it, but it cannot be stopped, only possibly slowed or altered. The real problem is that it was initially used, in the public, as a way to introduce healthy ways of doing things. it was a cry for help on behalf of the companies in the world that were trying to conserve, reuse, and make affordable energy when we could have really done some good.
And no, I only know what I have done personal research on. I am by no means an expert, but that does not mean that I cannot rationalize a solution/opinion. Thus is the spirit of the debate.
Marcosco: ok, so we are AFFECTING it, but we are not EFFECTING it.
for those tards in the audience (you know who you are), that means that we are contributing TO it, but it cannot be stopped, only possibly slowed or altered. The real problem is that it was initially used, in the public, as a way to introduce healthy ways of doing things. it was a cry for help on behalf of the companies in the world that were trying to conserve, reuse, and make affordable energy when we could have really done some good.
And no, I only know what I have done personal research on. I am by no means an expert, but that does not mean that I cannot rationalize a solution/opinion. Thus is the spirit of the debate.
Natural, historic planetary temperature fluctuations:
/\/\/\/\/\/
the projected effects of the last 100 years and counting...
climates change all the time we cant prevent it - its natures course and besides as everywhere else heats up Britain gets colder so its like global freezing for us. any solutions to give us?
nmmoore13: Solution: realize global warming is not man made.
Yeah, because there's tons of legitimate scientific evidence for that, and it's totally not another conspiracy theory. [/sarcasm]
It really bugs me that people keep saying there's no scientific evidence for global warming when, actually, there's an absurd amount of it, and the evidence only continues to grow as everyone continually ignores it.
The only long-term solution is to just burn way less fossil fuels, and when we do burn them, try to filter out most of the CO2 before it escapes into the atmosphere. Though nothing is really going to happen unless people stop denying it without any real evidence.
global warming is mabye 5% man made. The rest of it is to do with natural processes, such as the oceans saturation of CO2 (during cold climates the seas absorb co2, and vice versa, hence why there is a link between climate and co2 levels). It is all just hysteria and propaganda used by governments for extra tax. And hybrid cars? Useless. They cause more polution in their production (battery dell etc) than the emissions they offset. Also a regular deisel car will do more miles to the gallon than any hybrid you care to mention
As someone who has actually worked for a company dealing with the issue of Global Warming, I find it rather depressing to listen to all you uninformed americans claiming there is no evidence for GW being man made. Before you start shouting off about your own little home-cooked ideas, read a book. About 99% of the worlds scientits - an overwhelmingly large proportion I am sure you agree- have concluded that this is man made. The world's climate changes natually over time *Yes*, but we're talking about tens of thousands of years here, not in a single centuary. By the way, the other 1% of scientists work for the oil companies. Exxon Mobile has been known to pay scientist just to sign documents they have written themselves trying to create a debate over the subject. This is a typical situation where the uneducated masses think they know more than the scientist, and walk around telling each other that evolution doesn't exist, contunually reinforcing their own self made delusions. There is No debate in the scientific community about the fact that GW is man made, there is only the illusion of a debate, mostly funded by those who have the most to loose - the oil rich tycoons, and the governments they finance.
Global warming is - at best - a debated subject. IPCC's statement about the warming being man-made is already facing criticism for not taking into account confounding factors such as solar activity. Basically they set out to prove that warming is man-made (i.e. jumped to the concusion) and ignored to investigate anything else.
This does not mean however that we should not improve on things. Coal and other combustibles kill people. Nuclear power is the way to go to replace much of the shit we release into the environment today.
Image freely usable under Creative Commons 3.0 - BY-NC-SA. Click on image for downloadables
A good call, to say the least. Nuke power can really be the best thing at this point, and we've done quite a bit of research into doing it safely, it just still scares people. Meltdowns happen, yeah, but Chernobyl was a long time ago.
And to restate an earlier idea, global warming is a tool. Obviously it happens. Everything fluctuates, so it will get warmer. Durh. Ecology and safer materials seems a more pressing matter than global warming.
nothing original really, jsut the normal coctail for clean alternative energies
Crowd control? hmmmm... I guess decreasing the amount of fossil fueld used would be the ONLY good thing to come out of Genocide, drought or any other natural disaster. Other than that, I don't really see a bright side to death. Or Genocide. or natural disasters.
theprinceofcamden: As someone who has actually worked for a company dealing with the issue of Global Warming, I find it rather depressing to listen to all you uninformed americans claiming there is no evidence for GW being man made. Before you start shouting off about your own little home-cooked ideas, read a book.
Ditto to that.
As to the question... let it happen. A lot of animals are going to go extinct (probably including humans) but a lot of others are going to do very well out of it. It is, after all, just releasing carbon into the atmosphere that once existed there anyway. The seas will heat up, doubtless that will mean more life as soon as the oceans stop getting the life sucked out of them by mankind. One thing is for sure though - this will amount to barely a dent in the biosphere in the long term. 10 million years after the last human dies not a single trace of them will remain here.
You do know you are agreeing with someone, based from the evideance of the post they created, who may well be a complete idiot?
Let's see, has a job that exists purely because of 'global warming' not exactly going to be impartial now.
Proceeds to insult anyone who doesn't agree with the man made GW theory going as far as calling them deluded uneducated idiots that need to read up on what they are talking about. Only to then go ahead and pull 'facts and figures' out of total thin air with no source, no proof and no information what so ever.
I would assume someone who's job is dependant on global warming would be capable of providing a good amount of info to back up their 'facts' but I fear that like many in the modern world his 'job' is yet another non job that only exists because of some barely understood unsolvable theory.
There is this new plug on the market: The Pulse Plug.
It has been known to increase mileage by 4 miles and decreases the amount of CO2 emissions by a quarter-ton annually. They also cost an average of $30 US.
There, I fixed that for you.